Mr J. Plant v Bank of Beirut (UK) Limited — 2019

Mr Plant was employed by Bank of Beirut (UK) Limited from December 2007 and went off sick with stress in July 2015. The case centred on pension contributions paid into his SIPP while he was absent. In September and October 2016 he asked the bank to confirm to Hargreaves Lansdown that the contributions had been made "by mistake" so that they could be returned, because otherwise he said he would lose fixed protection for the lifetime allowance. Earlier claims of age, race and religion discrimination had been withdrawn at a preliminary hearing, disability discrimination had been dismissed after a finding that he was not disabled, and public interest disclosure claims had been struck out.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct: the respondent genuinely believed that the claimant had asked it to make a false statement to a pension provider, HMRC or the Pensions Regulator in order to obtain a tax advantage. It rejected the claimant's case that the real reason was his long sickness absence. Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities on reasonable investigation and reasonable employer responses, the tribunal found that the respondent had investigated over an extended period, had sought the claimant's explanation repeatedly, and that the appeal process was a substantive one rather than a box-ticking exercise.

The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found that the claimant knew the statement he was asking for would be false and that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct in the context of a regulated financial services business. The tribunal held that his later explanations, including arguments about breach of contract and payslip information, did not displace the conclusion that he had sought to involve the bank in a misrepresentation. The stigma damages claim failed because he had not proved that the respondent's earlier regulatory history caused his unsuccessful job search or that the UBA interview failed because of any association with that history. The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found that, at least from January 2016, he was fit for work and could not rely on sickness to carry statutory leave forward, and because the contractual holiday provisions had also ceased after sick pay was exhausted.

The tribunal also made a costs order. It ordered the claimant to pay 70% of the respondent's costs incurred from 18 July 2018, on a detailed assessment basis, after finding that the way he had pursued and reworked the claims was unreasonable. No quantified monetary award was made to the claimant.